RUSEAU, Nov 21 (IPS) – Roosevelt Skerrit is Prime Minister of DominicaIn Dominica, we are privileged to have over 50 Sperm Whale families living in the calm waters off our western coast as fellow citizens. Living in matrilineal societies led by grandmothers and mothers, these enormous creatures spend time in our waters diving deep for squid, giving birth and raising their young.
Unfortunately, from the busy US West Coast to a remote island in Western Australia, the world’s largest mammals are showing signs of distress. Mass die-offs, mysterious illnesses, ship strikes and puzzling changes in behavior make it clear that whales need a lifeline.
As a small developing state we are proud of our resident sperm whale population and inspired to put nature first in all that we do – as frontiers of the global impacts of climate change brought on from extra-regional activities that threaten the natural environment on an international scale.
In recent years, however, our resident sperm whales haven’t been treated with the respect they deserve. With increasing maritime activities they are often hit by ships, tangled in plastic garbage and imperiled by other human threats that negatively impact their habitat.
With rising ocean temperatures within the region, the increased intensity and the incidence of potential catastrophic climate-induced events can further reduce their numbers or result in their migration to the cooler ocean up in the North. It must be noted therefore that since 2008, our sperm whale families have been declining steadily
It is for this reason that I present on behalf of the Government and the People of the Commonwealth of Dominica this declaration of our firm commitment to the establishment of a sanctuary for the protection of our resident sperm whale population. This Sperm Whale Reserve shall become the first marine protected area designed specifically to preserve the whales’ marine habitat critical for them to thrive in this pristine environment along the west coast of Dominica and is consistent with our commitment under the Sustainable Development Goals to increase the total marine protected area within our exclusive economic zone.
By creating a safe haven for our whale families, we are not only helping them and the ocean. We are contributing directly to improving and sustaining life below water and protecting the economy–benefits that extend to our local fishers, tour operators and the people around the world–while building resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Marine scientists have shared a surprising yet little known fact that whales are incredibly efficient at sequestering climate pollution. After diving deep in the ocean to hunt for squid found in the deep marine waters of Waitukubuli, they rise to the surface to breathe, rest and defecate. Their defecation infuses the water with minerals from the deep, nitrogen and iron that enable tiny organisms, phytoplankton to grow and, in turn absorb carbon.
As a result of this “whale pump” system, our efforts at protecting Dominica’s whales are equivalent to taking 5,000 cars off the road every year. Simply by hunting, eating and defecating, these whales can help keep climate change at bay–at no cost to us all with great potential to generate new sources of income.
The whale reserve shall bolster one of our most important industries–ecotourism–with Dominica being one of the few places in the world where sperm whales can be reliably spotted on whale-watching or swimming-with-whales adventures tours.
Developing Dominica as a safe haven for sperm whales will enable us to keep our tourism industry buoyant without putting our natural environment or our fisheries at risk.
It is our hope that through the Sperm Whale Reserve we are creating a new model that benefits a wide range of stakeholders particularly in the tourism and fisheries sectors. We recognize that, as a small developing island state with limited resources, we have the opportunity through this humble act of protecting the whales who call Dominica home, to have a profound impact in the region and worldwide, and to be viewed as a large ocean state.
As we launch this programme for the establishment of the first Sperm Whale Reserve in the World, we encourage all nations, everywhere that have the honor and privilege to include whales as bonafide citizens, to join us in our commitment to protect our living marine resources–before it’s too late.
Opinion by Carel du Marchie Sarvaas (brussels, belgium)
Inter Press Service
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 21 (IPS) – The recent downturn in sales of alternative meat products is only the latest evidence that the world is unlikely to give up animal protein completely in the long run.
In fact, all forecasts suggest global consumption of meat, milk, fish and eggs will continue to rise, with some parts of the world relying on animal agriculture to make up dire protein deficiencies and meet nutrition needs.
With production expected to grow, governments and global bodies must support livestock sector efforts to become increasingly sustainable and keep climate action on track.
Achieving net zero emissions while allowing for an upward trend in meat production and consumption relies on making wholesale efficiency gains, and this starts with the net positive step of improving animal health.
Emissions from the livestock sector are divided between those generated directly through the digestive processes of animals, and those produced indirectly through the provision of feed, land, water, medicine, transportation, and processing. Healthier animals are associated with lower levels of both direct and indirect emissions.
Reducing the spread of animal disease, improving fertility and breeding, and optimising livestock feed are all proven ways to meet rising demand while supporting climate goals. It is why the UN has urged nations to make “improved animal health…one of the key action points to reduce GHG emissions.”
And with additional benefits for improved animal welfare and human health, veterinary interventions offer only positive returns as part of national climate strategies, regardless of the social, political and environmental context.
Mounting evidence demonstrates a strong correlation between livestock disease and emissions from animal agriculture. Diseases drive up emissions by undermining productivity, causing more wastage, and requiring more resources to maintain production levels.
When animals fall sick, they fail to reach target weights or reproduce, meaning farmers must invest in treating the animal while also making up for the shortfall in output. And diseases with high mortality levels, such as avian influenza, mean farmers need more animals to produce the same amount of meat, milk and eggs.
Recent modelling indicates that disease outbreaks in low-income countries that affect 20 per cent of cattle in a herd, for example, result in an estimated 60 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, vaccinating livestock against preventable diseases can both protect animals from infection and reduce the emissions attributed to each kilogram of meat or litre of milk. Reducing global disease levels by just 10 per cent through vaccination and other preventative health measures would bring down greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 800 million tonnes – equivalent to the annual emissions of close to 200 million people.
Expanding access to animal vaccines, especially in low-income countries, and endorsing livestock vaccination as part of public policy should therefore be on the agenda as a climate solution at the upcoming COP28 climate talks.
Similarly, improvements in livestock breeding can also reduce the environmental footprint of animal agriculture while increasing productivity.
Digital health monitoring innovations, such as smart tags, can make it easier for producers to accurately assess when cows are in heat and therefore more likely to successfully conceive. Not only does this minimise the resources and emissions involved in livestock breeding, but it also reduces the stress on the animal.
Meanwhile, genetic assessments found the “top” 25 per cent of cows produced 10 per cent fewer methane emissions and required five per cent less feed, while also producing 35 per cent more milk. Investing in more efficient livestock breeding programmes that harness the advantages of genetic testing would also support national climate plans without compromising food supplies.
Finally, optimising the quality and quantity of livestock feed has also been shown to reduce both direct and indirect emissions. Growing evidence indicates that dietary inhibitors and feed additives can effectively reduce the methane generated when cows and sheep digest food.
And the animal health sector has significantly advanced scientific understanding of the essential nutrition needed by livestock, which means farmers and veterinarians can create evidence-based feeding regimes that eliminate waste and overconsumption. This eases the burden on feed production, minimising emissions caused by sourcing and transporting animal feed, while ensuring the animals receive the nutrition they need to support healthy growth.
Improving the health, fertility and nutrition of farm animals has no downsides. And, as a cornerstone of the “One Health” concept of integrated planetary wellbeing, it is directly linked to the health of people and the environment.
For climate negotiators looking for practical, proven, and effective ways to curb emissions while meeting future food needs ahead of this year’s COP28, livestock health measures offer the elusive universal win-win.
Carel du Marchie Sarvaas is executive director of HealthforAnimals, the global animal health association
Marking World Toilet Day on November 19th, the global community faces a pressing sanitation crisis affecting 3.5 billion people. Credit: Lova Rabary-Rakontondravony/IPS
Opinion by Thokozani Dlamini (pretoria, south africa)
Inter Press Service
PRETORIA, South Africa, Nov 19 (IPS) – World Toilet Day 2023, on 19 November, focusing on ‘Accelerating Change’ – Toilets are a foundation stone of public health and play a critical role in protecting the environment”Celebrated annually on the 19th of November, World Toilet Day aims to inspire concerted efforts in addressing the pressing global sanitation crisis, which currently leaves approximately 3.5 billion people without access to safely managed sanitation.
Even today, a staggering 3.5 billion individuals lack safely managed sanitation, and an appalling 419 million people continue to use ‘open defecation’, a condition that encourages the spread of diseases and claims the lives of 1,000 children under the age of five daily. This sanitation crisis, a hazard to human health and the environment, disproportionately affects women, girls, and other vulnerable groups.
Given the fact that only seven years remain to attain the 2030 target for Sustainable Development Goal 6 – ensuring safe water for all – the global community needs to accelerate its efforts to ensure that the 2030 agenda is realized.
Our current pace, coupled with insufficient funds, escalating demand, deteriorating water quality, and the inadequacies of existing governance frameworks, gravely threatens the realization of this goal.
In alignment with this year’s theme – ‘Accelerating Change’ – it’s imperative that we expedite our global efforts to achieve the UN’s 2030 target. Governments and major institutions must synergistically operate, take accountability for their promises, and timely deliver on them. Actually, every individual, regardless of their contributions’ scale, has a role in accelerating this progress.
Implications of poor sanitation
The implications of poor water and sanitation are widespread and deleterious, gravely affecting individuals who are forced to use unsanitary toilet facilities or consume and utilize contaminated water. Diseases linked to sanitation, like diarrheal diseases, cholera, typhoid fever, hepatitis A, and various parasitic infections, pose significant public health risks.
These illnesses can result in extensive sickness, hospitalizations, and even fatalities, particularly in areas with sparse access to clean water and adequate sanitation facilities. Enhancements of sanitation infrastructure can decrease these disease burdens and elevate public health globally.
Benefits of good sanitation
Absolutely, having good sanitation facilities indeed has numerous benefits. They go beyond the improvement of public health. Proper sanitation infrastructure can reduce healthcare costs as there are fewer cases of sanitation-related diseases. It can also increase productivity as individuals are healthier and can devote more time to work. studies, or other activities.
This results in a better quality of life for individuals and their communities. Furthermore, good sanitation infrastructure contributes to environmental sustainability. It aids in reducing pollution since waste is properly managed and does not end up contaminating water bodies and other natural environments. A safe and clean environment, in turn, helps protect vital natural resources, including clean water sources.
Collaborative efforts
Governments, donors, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations all play significant roles in advancing sanitation infrastructure. They need to cooperate and work cohesively towards delivering water and sanitation services effectively. Furthermore, research institutions can contribute by providing the necessary scientific understanding and technological innovations. This joint endeavour will not just help in achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically Goal 6, but also improve public health and well-being on a global scale.
SADC-GMI’s efforts
SADC-GMI has made commendable efforts by implementing various projects in SADC Member States to ensure everyone has access to water and sanitation as per the United Nations Agenda 2030. These initiatives have positively impacted local communities by ensuring a continuous water supply which ultimately leads to better hygiene. Beyond hygiene, these water supply projects have also brought about improved economic benefits for the communities. Indeed, the projects are transformative, aiding communities in gaining access to dependable water supply for both domestic and economic uses.
These projects, despite the complications posed by climate change, continue to thrive and be sustainable. This resilience greatly benefits communities, offering steady water for various needs. This ties into reaching the sanitation goals defined by the United Nations Agenda 2030.
Yes, with the 2030 deadline of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals approaching, fast progress is needed to ensure everyone has access to basic sanitation facilities and clean water. Sanitation and drinking water are human rights, and access to these services is crucial for people’s health and the integrity of the environment. To this end, cooperation between different sectors – governments, donors, the private sector, research institutions, and civil society will be critical in facilitating this progression.
Thokozani Dlamini is SADC-GMI Communication and Knowledge Management Specialist
LONDON, Nov 17 (IPS) – The need to act on the climate crisis has never been clearer. In 2023, heat records have been shattered around the world. Seemingly every day brings news of extreme weather, imperilling lives. In July, UN Secretary-General António Guterres grimly announced that ‘the era of global boiling has arrived’.
In short, there’s a lot at stake as the world heads into its next climate summit.
But there’s a big problem: COP28, the latest in the annual series of conferences of parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will be held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is a country with closed civic space, where dissent is criminalised and activists are routinely detained. It’s also a fossil fuel power bent on continuing extraction.
At multilateral summits where climate change decisions are made, it’s vital that civil society is able to mobilise to demand greater ambition, hold states and fossil fuel companies and financiers to account and ensure the views of people most affected by climate change are heard. But that can’t happen in conditions of closed civic space.
Concerning signs
In September, the UAE was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which highlights countries experiencing significant declines in respect for civic freedoms. Civic space in the UAE has long been closed: no dissent against the government or advocacy for human rights is allowed, and those who try to speak out risk criminalisation. In 2022, a Cybercrime Law introduced even stronger restrictions on online expression.
There’s widespread torture in jails and detention centres and at least 58 prisoners of conscience have been held in prison despite having completed their sentences. Many of them were part of a group known as the UAE 94, jailed for the crime of calling for democracy. Among the ranks of those incarcerated is Ahmed Mansoor, sentenced to 10 years in jail in 2018 for his work documenting the human rights situation, and held in solitary confinement for over five years and counting.
Ahead of COP28, civil society has worked to highlight the absurdity of holding such a vital summit in closed civic space conditions. Domestic civil society is unable to influence COP28 and its preparatory process, and it’s hard to see how civil society, both domestic and international, will be able to express itself freely during the summit.
Civil society is demanding that the UAE government demonstrate that it’s prepared to respect human rights, including by releasing political prisoners – something it’s so far failed to budge on.
An ominous sign came when the UAE hosted a climate and health summit in April. Participants were reportedly instructed not to criticise the government, corporations, individuals or Islam, and not to protest while in the UAE.
Civic space restrictions aren’t the only indication the UAE isn’t taking COP28 seriously. The president of the summit, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, also happens to be head of the state’s fossil fuel corporation ADNOC, the world’s 11th-biggest oil and gas producer. It’s like putting an arms manufacturer in charge of peace talks. Multiple other ADNOC staff members have roles in the summit. ADNOC is currently talking up its investments in renewable energies, all while planning one of the biggest expansions of oil and gas extraction of any fossil fuel corporation.
Instead of real action, all the signs are that the regime is instrumentalising its hosting of COP28 to try to launder its reputation, as indicated by its hiring of expensive international lobbying firms. An array of fake social media accounts were created to praise the UAE as host and defend it from criticism. A leaked list of key COP28 talking points prepared by the host made no mention of fossil fuels.
A summit that should be about tackling the climate crisis – and quickly – is instead being used to greenwash the image of the host government – something easiest achieved if civil society is kept at arm’s length.
Fossil fuel lobby to the fore
With civil society excluded, the voices of those actively standing in the way of climate action will continue to dominate negotiations. That’s what happened at COP27, also held in the closed civic space of Egypt, where 636 fossil fuel lobbyists took part – and left happy. Like every summit before it, its final statement made no commitment to reduce oil and gas use.
The only way to change this is to open the doors to civil society. Civil society has consistently sounded the alarm and raised public awareness of the need for climate action. It’s the source of practical solutions to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts. It urges more ambitious commitments and more funding, including for the loss and damage caused by climate change. It defends communities against environmentally destructive impacts, resists extraction and promotes sustainability. It pressures states and the private sector to stop approving and financing further extraction and to transition more urgently to more renewable energies and more sustainable practices. These are the voices that must be heard if the cycle of runaway climate change is to be stopped.
COPs should be held in countries that offer an enabling civic space that allows strong domestic mobilisation, and summit hosts should be expected to abide by high standards when it comes to domestic and international access and participation. That should be part of the deal hosts make in return for the global prestige that comes with hosting high-level events. Civil society’s exclusion mustn’t be allowed to happen again.
Stephany Musombi and engineers preparing the banana stems for processing at KIRDI. Credit: Wilson Odhiambo/IPS
by Wilson Odhiambo (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
NAIROBI, Nov 16 (IPS) – ’Going Green’ seems to Dr Jacquline Kisato’s favorite catchphrase as she passionately explains her eco-friendly sanitary towel, a product she expects will help empower women and young girls while also putting money into farmers’ pockets.
Kisato is a lecturer at the Kenyatta University (KU), Fashion Design and Marketing, currently working on a project to develop affordable and eco-friendly sanitary towels while also finding a solution for sustainable packaging materials.
Kisato’s venture started out to help communities get a source of employment through the commercialization of banana stems – products that were considered useless by farmers and would usually be left to rot away on farms.
After the Kenyan government enforced a ban on the use of plastic bags in 2018, there was a need to find immediate alternatives.
Plastic bags were a necessity for grocers and fast-food vendors, an item that made it easy for customers to carry their goods home. Despite their advantage, however, their negative impact on the environment could no longer be overlooked.
‘’I started looking at this project from an entrepreneurship point of view on how I could commercialize banana stem fibers. The government had just banned single-use plastic bags, and market vendors needed alternatives to serve their customers,’’ Kisato told IPS.
‘’Poorly disposed sanitary towels also formed part of the pollution problem since they were composed of plastic,’’ she added.
According to Kisato, however, her need to empower women and young girls through affordable sanitary towels was something that she always had in mind after noticing the struggles that school-going girls went through.
‘’While walking along the hallways one day, a student on campus stopped me and asked if I could help her with a packet of sanitary pads. This incident shocked me as for a long time, I had assumed ‘period poverty’ was only experienced amongst high school children,’’ Kisato said.
Kisato and her research team interviewed 400 high school girls from Gatundi, Kibera, and Kawangware, where they found out that more than 50 percent of the girls in these low-income areas could hardly afford sanitary pads even when at home.
This did not sit well with the don as she felt something needed to be done about it.
It was while researching alternatives to plastic bags that she realized that she could solve two problems at the same time.
Kisato, therefore, applied for the National Research Fund (NRF) in 2018 with the aim of developing eco-friendly plastic bags and sanitary towels. Her wish came through when NRF granted Kenyatta University Ksh.9 million (about US $ 61,623) in 2020, with her taking the lead as the principal investigator in the project.
Her team is made up of scholars from different departments and institutions and also includes Ph.D. and master’s students, with each one of them playing a major role in seeing the project through.
‘’I lead a team of engineers from the Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI), whose task is to reverse engineer machines that can extract fiber from banana stems and use them to create eco-friendly packaging and sanitary towels,’’ she explained. “I also have researchers from Moi University whose work was to turn the extracted fiber into soft materials for use.”
Kisato’s aim was to produce quality sanitary towels that could compete with what was already in the market while still being eco-friendly, a fact that led her to seek the expertise of Edwin Madivoli, a chemistry lecturer at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT).
According to Kisato, the towels on the market have a component in them called hydrogel, which enables them to retain fluids for longer, and were also lined with plastic sheets to prevent any leakage. Our intention is to replicate the same but use bioplastic materials, which can degrade as opposed to the normal plastic that is being used.
From her research, Kisato also discovered that Africans, on average, wore sanitary towels for longer as compared to women and girls from developed countries and were thus at risk of getting bacterial infections. This was due to limited access and affordability in Africa.
‘’The recommended period for one to have on a sanitary pad is about three hours, which means that it should be changed at least three times a day to avoid any risk of infections. This is, however, not the case for many girls in Africa due to poverty,’’ Kisato explained to IPS.
‘’We thought adding anti-microbial properties to our product would therefore make it as good or even better than what was in the market,’’ said Kisato.
The research team also found out that there were a lot of myths surrounding menstrual flow among young girls, a fact that led to a lot of stigmatization, which made it difficult for them to understand how to use sanitary towels properly.
Some of the notable ideas that girls told each other concerning menstrual flow included:
It is a curse from God
Girls who had periods were considered dirty and impure
Their faces would become pale from losing blood
‘’These are beliefs that need to be done away with by encouraging parents and the government to speak about monthly periods with young girls openly,’’ Kisato said.
For the second phase of the project, Madivoli’s chemistry expertise came in handy, and the Research Scholarship and Innovation Fund (RSIF) was happy to add an additional Ksh.9 million (about USD 59,000) for Kisato to continue what she had started.
‘’My role is to ensure our sanitary pads are of the same quality as what is in the market while at the same time maintaining an eco-friendly nature, which is the main agenda of this whole project,’’ Madivoli told IPS.
‘’I am tasked with the development of hydrogels, production of bioplastics, and finding a way to incorporate anti-microbial properties into our products to protect the users from possible infections,’’ he said.
JKUAT received funding of Ksh.800,000 (about US $ 5477) from the Kenya National Innovation Agency (KENIA) to further help Madivoli with this research.
“As they are left to dry up on the farms, banana stems are known to produce large amounts of methane, which is a harmful greenhouse gas that contributes to the climate change problems that we are trying to tackle, added Madivoli. ‘”Having an alternative use for the stems therefore limits the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.’’
Madivoli said that most banana farmers usually do not know what to do with the stems once they have done their harvest, and this project gives them a way to earn some extra income as they expect to buy the stems from them at Ksh.35 per stem.
“This project will not only be environmentally friendly but will also create jobs for the people who go to cut the stems from the farms while also finding use for the biomass that the farmers thought was useless,’’ he concluded.
Once it is up and running, they expect to source banana stems from counties such as Kisii, Muranga, Embu, Meru, and parts of western Kenya.
Stephany Musombi is one of Kisato’s students specializing in textiles whose task in the project is to come up with quality packaging materials.
‘’Apart from the banana fiber, I am also experimenting with other biomass such as pineapple and seaweed,’’ Musombi told IPS. If I can find a way to make this work, the project will open up a market for seaweed and pineapple biomass.
Kisato’s project could not have picked a better time there is an international joint push for green solutions to help mitigate climate change. On September 4, 2023, Kenya also played host to the climate summit that attracted leaders from across Africa.
Kenya’s president, William Ruto, drove himself in a tiny electric car to the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC), where he challenged the African leaders and innovators to find sustainable solutions to their daily activities that can help them reduce the carbon print in the continent and globally.
‘’Africa can power all energy needs with renewable resources. The continent has enough potential to be entirely self-sufficient using wind, solar, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and hydropower energy. Africa can be a green industrial hub that helps other regions achieve their net zero strategies by 2050,’’ Ruto said at the summit.
Kisato expects her product to hit the market later this year, where she plans to make it more affordable for all. Her intention is to team up with startups or established companies that deal with toiletries.
‘’The cheapest sanitary packet in the market costs Ksh.140. We expect ours to go as low as Ksh.100, Kisato,’’ concluded.
Kenyatta University’s Vice Chancellor, Paul Wainaina, lauded the project, stating that it will enable the country to meet its industrial needs while conserving the environment.
Gernot Laganda, Director / Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction at United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
by Stella Paul (hyderabad, india)
Inter Press Service
HYDERABAD, INDIA, Nov 14 (IPS) – ‘If you ask what climate justice is, then the litmus test for climate justice is at the local level. So, climate justice needs to be judged by how many people are protected from climate-vulnerable conditions that they have no hand in creating.’ – Gernot Laganda, Director of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
It is crucial to narrow the gaps and ensure that climate finance goes to where people are most vulnerable, says Gernot Laganda, Director of Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)—especially as the most fragile states only receive USD 2.1 per capita while non-fragile states receive USD 161.
Laganda leads WFP country offices to support governments dealing with the effects of climate change on food systems, prioritize concrete actions to avoid, reduce, or transfer growing climate risks in-country programs, and work with new and emerging climate finance mechanisms to implement adaptation solutions for the most vulnerable and food-insecure communities.
In this exclusive interview with IPS, Laganda speaks about a wide range of issues, including the climate disasters that WFP has responded to this year—and the impact of the humanitarian aid the programme has provided across the world, among the most vulnerable people who climate-induced disasters have directly impacted. As the world zooms towards 1.5 degrees of global warming, the number of climate disasters is rapidly increasing, and so is the requirement for more humanitarian aid. However, the current aid financing methods are not able to meet this unprecedented need, and there is always a gap between the requirement and the actual funding received.
As the 28th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) draws near, Laganda speaks of the funding challenges humanitarian aid agencies are facing—an issue that requires urgent attention from the governments and investors gathering at the COP. He also speaks of his expectations from the negotiations, the actions, and the decisions that will determine the success of the conference.
Gernot Laganda, Director / Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction at United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
Here are excerpts from the interview:
IPS: Which climate disasters did WFP respond to this year, and what kind of assistance did you provide?
Laganda: This year, of course, is a very peculiar year because it is really on track to become the warmest year on record. We have an El Niño phenomenon that overlays with global warming. Last month, on the 2nd of October, we had 86 days above the 1.5-degree threshold, so this year was out of the ordinary. This year, in March, we had tropical cyclone Freddie, which hit Madagascar, Mozambique, and Malawi. This was the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record for Africa. It killed 860 people with floods and landslides. But it had a peculiar behavior. Typically, cyclones are fed by heated energy from the oceans, so they lose intensity when they touch land. But Freddie developed in February on the west coast of Australia, across the Indian Ocean, made landfall in Madagascar, then to Mozambique before returning to the ocean. But then it gained more energy and hit land again in Malawi. So, it’s a very uncommon behavior.
The response related to humanitarian assistance, of course, is related to supporting the governments with relief operations. For example, in Malawi, which was badly hit by cyclone Freddie, we helped distribute two months of food basket items targeting the most affected districts. We used schools as entry points to provide emergency rations. And, in the case of farmers from whom we buy food for local school meal programs, we substituted these with a feeding (scheme) to allow farmers to recover from the loss. So, there’s the typical humanitarian response machine that kicks into gear. These climate extremes are now happening more frequently; they hit more strongly, and this humanitarian response needs more finances, which is currently not there in the system.
To give you some numbers, in the Horn of Africa, we had an unprecedented sequence of drought in three countries – Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya; 47,000 people died in Somalia during the drought in 2022 (and) WFP distributed food assistance to a record 4.7 million people.
IPS: What kind of loss and damage did these disasters cause?
Laganda: First, there’s a national picture, and then after the disaster, you have the loss and damage figures, and the context is very different in different parts of a country, especially in countries like Somalia, where there is also an overlay of climate effects on conflict, on inflation and economic shock. However, the biggest impact is on housing and natural capital.
IPS: Can you elaborate further?
Laganda: Okay. For example, when you are a farmer in a developing country, you have several assets or capitals, including natural capital. This natural capital includes your natural resources like forest and fiber products, cattle, land, and soil. Then, there are disaster preparedness elements like insurance coverage, access to savings, and access to insurance protection. If these capitals are strong and intact, you can recover from disaster shocks and overcome the disaster impact shocks. You can also recover if you have soil restoration, insurance coverage, and access to savings.
But when many of these natural capital areas are degraded or hit (as happened in these above-mentioned disasters), you have no protective shields.
IPS: Three years ago, at COP25, you had said that only 60 percent of the climate finance that’s needed in the aftermath of a disaster is funded, while 40 percent is not funded. Has this ratio changed since then? How?
Laganda: Unfortunately, humanitarian aid after disasters remains chronically underfunded. Also, over the period of five years, UN humanitarian appeals after climate disasters were only funded 54 percent on average. At the same time, we see that these disasters increase, and our requirements are now eight times higher than they were 20 years ago. So, we are really in a time when humanitarian needs are increasing very sharply, especially when it comes to people suffering from acute hunger, but there is not enough financing to meet all these needs after climate disasters.
It’s the same with climate finance. As the recently published Adaptation Gap Report shows, there is a massive gap in investment in adaptation. Also, from 2014 to 2021, the climate finance available per capita in non-fragile states was USD 161, while it was only USD 2.1 in extremely fragile states. So, there is a huge disparity between where that money goes and where people are most vulnerable. This means two things: we need to make sure there is more funding in the system for the humanitarian needs after climate disasters, but it also means we need to invest much more strategically and faster because we are already in the state where we are reaching the 1.5-degree threshold as mentioned in the Paris Agreement. So, we need more targeted efforts in climate projection and protection in the most vulnerable context.
IPS: What is the main reason behind this continued funding gap? Is there some sort of fatigue among funders, or is this just a case of reduced priority?
Laganda: Many disasters are now compound and protracted. That means there are many countries and sectors where humanitarian aid needs to stay for decades. So, it’s not like there is one disaster, then there is humanitarian relief, and then it’s over. You have decades of humanitarian needs that never stop, right? So, it’s really hard to sustain that financing commitment in an ever-growing number of countries where people have this acute humanitarian need. For example, the number of people facing acute hunger has doubled only in a span of three years. We have been seeing a situation where people are caught between these different risk drivers: conflict, economic shocks, and climate change. And so, the old models of humanitarian aid that we have just don’t work anymore.
IPS: Currently, all eyes are on the Loss and Damage Fund. Civil society is already alleging that the fund is compromised and that it lacks the commitment to human rights. What are your thoughts?
Laganda: The Loss and Damage Fund was a very difficult negotiation, and I think it’s understandable that the fund should be guided by human rights. If you ask what climate justice is, then the litmus test for climate justice is at the local level. So, climate justice needs to be judged by how many people are protected from climate-vulnerable conditions that they have no hand in creating. That’s ultimately what we all want to do. But the mechanism that we have available for loss and damage—this has been a very polarized conversation. I understand that there was some disappointment with the way the reference to human rights was being discussed, but I am sure that when this conversation happens again at COP28 in Dubai, there will be a great push to put this language back into the agreement.
At this point, there is a provisional way forward, and I do not think this will be a smooth process, but I do hope that at the end of COP28, there will be a functioning operational modality for a loss and damage facility because this is really a very important aspect to the entire climate change policy landscape.
A decade ago, we were excited about climate change mitigation and adaptation. But now we are failing at mitigation, and adaptation is too little too late. We need an expansion of this conversation from climate mitigation and adaptation to loss and damage, and I think at COP28, this will take center stage. I think it’s important to have that agreement because nobody wants to have a COP28 that is not successful, and that would be an important part of the success.
IPS: And what are your expectations from the COP28? What actions should be prioritized to combat climate-induced hunger?
Laganda: It’s a good question. When we stay on these three headlines – climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, loss, and damage, it’s clear that on the mitigation side, we would like to see greater ambition, and where governments are making investments, the actions are compatible with the rhetoric because at the moment there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality.
The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) need to be more ambitious. We need to bend the temperature curve – there is no question about it. We cannot adapt our way out of the problem. The Adaptation Gap report says there is only USD 21 billion in public financing per year. We need at least USD 40 billion, which is also the goal that the UN secretary-general has. Also, adaptation investment needs to happen much faster and in a less bureaucratic manner, so more funding and more efficient deployment of that financing. And, in loss and damage, we would like to see a successful conclusion to the negotiations so that a Loss and Damage Fund is established with operational criteria that live up to the needs. We have to protect vulnerable people on the frontline of the climate crisis. So, this loss and damage fund makes sure that vulnerable people are protected immediately and not five years from now because 2024 and 2025 are critical years as we are already crossing the 1.5-degree threshold of the Paris Agreement.
These are the expectations I have for COP28, and this is how we will judge its success by the end of the day.
IPS: Finally, do you think the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the conflict-effected humanitarian aid needs will overshadow the discussions of climate-induced humanitarian aid requirements in Dubai?
Laganda: COP28 is the first COP that dedicates an entire day to peace and fragility. There is, for the first time, a recognition that there is a link between climate and fragility and that there needs to be more investment in climate action in a fragile context and in a conflict-inflicted context. There really is a bridge between the climate theme and conflict theme, which will make us think about how we can place investments in places like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. So, I don’t think this (political conflict) will overshadow it, but how climate risks and conflict risks intersect will be prominent.
Kenya’s extensive coastline has been fronted as a hub for carbon trading due to its lush mangrove forests. But now experts caution that carbon markets are exploitative greenwashing systems. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
NAIROBI, Nov 10 (IPS) – Somalia, Syria, DRC Congo, Afghanistan, Yemen, Chad, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Nigeria, and Ethiopia are the 10 countries at greatest risk of climate disaster globally despite collectively contributing just 0.28 percent of global CO2 emissions. A climate-induced humanitarian crisis continues to unfold across these countries and many others in the global South, including Kenya, which declared drought a national disaster in September 2021.
Flash floods, failed rainy seasons, severe food insecurity, and climate-induced health disasters such as cholera are becoming frequent, and their debilitating effects are increasingly difficult to mitigate. In late 2022, for instance, floods caused extensive damage to farmlands in Nigeria, and projections show 25 million Nigerians could face high levels of food insecurity by the end of 2023.
Against this backdrop, there is growing concern that the carbon market has failed Africa and other developing countries in the global South. Governments and companies created carbon market systems to address their greenhouse emissions – a trading system in which carbon credits are sold and bought. One tradable carbon credit is equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide, or the amount of different greenhouse gases reduced, sequestered, or avoided.
Fadhel Kaboub, a Tunisian economist based in Nairobi, a senior advisor with Power Shift Africa and the President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, tells IPS, “Carbon credits are pollution permits that allow global North polluters to continue polluting while offering financial crumbs to the global South. They displace vulnerable communities from their ancestral territory and pastoral land. They enrich middlemen and speculators.”
Kaboub, who is also an Associate Professor of Economics at Denison University, says, “Through the dominant market power of the corporations that buy these pollution permits, they pass the cost of the carbon credits on to their customers, many of whom are actually in the Global South, so we end up paying for it indirectly.”
There are experts, however, such as those powering the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI), who are proactively promoting the carbon market systems as a powerful tool to deliver carbon justice. And for developing countries to accelerate socio-economic development by leveraging on selling carbon while transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
ACMI seeks to capture more of Africa’s potential in carbon markets by addressing the challenges to voluntary carbon market growth and building the foundations for a thriving voluntary carbon market ecosystem in Africa by 2030. Its priority areas are “not only on driving decarbonisation activities but also on driving economic development by supporting energy access, scaling the clean energy transition, protecting forests, improving agriculture, and creating new income sources.”
However, a recent report found that “ACMI’s growth target would allow big private companies to emit an additional 1.5-2.5 Gigatonnes CO2e per year by 2050, more than the total emissions from fossil fuels from all of Africa in 2021 and double the entire annual CO2 emissions from all of sub-Saharan Africa.”
IPS reached out to ACMI for comment, but it had not come back to us at the time of publication.
But carbon trading is not universally seen as a panacea to addressing global warming.
South African-based Dr Shehnaaz Moosa, the director and head of finance hub at SouthSouthNorth, which is a climate change non-profit organisation, tells IPS that carbon markets have the potential to either reinforce or mitigate historic structural inequalities between the global North and South.
“But given the dismal failure of the Clean Development Mechanism and the greenwashing of the voluntary carbon market, I am in the camp that believes it will reinforce these deep inequalities. The carbon market allows big polluters to keep doing so with no overall reduction in their emissions. Local projects in the global South that reduce carbon are exploited with no real benefit accruing to the communities.”
Moosa, who also lectures in Chemical Engineering at the University of Cape Town, says carbon trading must be seen for what it is, “a lot of hot air to legitimise the continued production of greenhouse emissions. We keep hearing the rhetoric that depending on how the market is structured, it will be of benefit, which is a Northern narrative, and there is no way to structure exploitation that will make it equitable because it is exactly what carbon trading is: exploitation.”
Kaboub affirms, citing a recent investigation that found that the majority of carbon offset projects essentially amount to greenwashing fraud – making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product or practice – that does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stressing that this is one of the most disturbing climate finance false solutions and dangerous distractions.
Moosa and Kaboub emphasise that the cause of disagreement is that carbon markets are attractive to high polluters as they enable wealthy industrialised nations and corporations to maintain carbon-intensive and climate-warming practices while transferring their emission reduction duties to Africa. Stressing that it is time to explore other climate financing mechanisms and bring into full effect the Polluter Pays Principle – one of the key principles underlying the European Union’s environmental policy.
The principle demands that polluters bear the costs of their pollution, including the cost of measures taken to prevent, control and remedy pollution and the costs it imposes on society. As such, polluters are incentivised to avoid environmental damage and are held responsible for the pollution that they cause. It is also the polluter, and not the taxpayer, who covers the cost of remediation.
Moosa is particularly focused on Loss and Damage, “while the Loss and Damage funding arrangements are being designed, we do not need to be distracted by a concept that only works for the big polluters. The developing countries’ energies should be directed to Loss and Damage and Adaptation finance because there cannot be climate justice until climate injustice is addressed. The global North has a long way to go to address these injustices, and carbon markets are not a way to do it.”
Kaboub agrees, calling for a need to steer clear of the carbon market as African countries that have not contributed to climate change and who are, in fact, the victims of climate-induced shocks are now being forced to give up territorial sovereignty over large swaths of land to foreign corporations to issue pollution permits – adding that this is a new form of colonialism.
NEW DELHI, India, Nov 10 (IPS) – For a long time, the agriculture sector has been heralded as a success story for India. Spurred by the Green Revolution, it provided a path-breaking solution to feed the country’s burgeoning population starting in the 1960s.
However, in recent decades, intensive land use and inequitable water resource management, compounded by a swelling population, prevailing poverty, depletion of natural resources, and a rapidly changing climate have put tremendous pressure on the country’s agricultural output.
The 2023 Global Hunger Index ranked India 111th out of 125 countries, indicating a serious level of hunger, with concerns growing about the possibility of long-term food scarcity. And earlier this year, The Women and Child Development Ministry found that nearly 8% of the country’s children were malnourished.
A similar situation pervades in various parts of the world:?139 million people?plunged into acute food insecurity in 2021, and in 2022, an estimated?2.4 billion people worldwide did not have regular access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food.
The Famine Early Warning Systems Network has projected approximately 100 million people worldwide will need food assistance through early 2024, in large part because of the El Niño.
Credit: UNICEF/Safidy Andriananten
The food crisis continued to worsen last year, as the tremors of the Russo-Ukrainian War and its trade policies and the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt across the globe. As of October 30, 2023, 19 countries have implemented 27 food export bans, and seven have implemented 15 export-limiting measures.
At the upcoming COP28 (30 November- 12 December in Dubai), governments must commit to taking serious action to curb the impacts of our food and land use systems on our climate. This includes: (1) urging nations to include emissions from food systems in their climate commitments; (2) addressing poor water management; and (3) adopting climate-resilient agriculture practices.
Agriculture and GHG emissions
A lack of sustainable agriculture production has made the food and land use sector a major contributor to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Global food systems account for?31% of global emissions?and could become a major factor in exceeding 1.5°C of warming between 2051 and 2063.?
Moreover, agricultural?land today takes up 38 percent of the global land surface. Nearly one-third of this is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consist of meadows and pastures for grazing livestock. This comes at the cost of extensive deforestation and biodiversity loss. ?Agriculture accounts on average for? 70%?of all freshwater withdrawals globally.
The challenge is even more acute for India, which accounts for about 17% of the world’s population but only 4% of the world’s freshwater resources. In fact, nearly 55% of Indians are dependent on agriculture. With the Indian population estimated to reach 1.67 billion by 2050, the demand on water, food and energy is only expected to increase.
Addressing Poor Water Management
Climate change has substantially impacted agricultural productivity, making better water management a necessity. India’s chief crop produce—rice, wheat, and sugarcane—consume the most water. Indian agriculture accounts for 90% water use due to fast-track groundwater depletion and poor irrigation systems. Due to an inept water resource management system and persistent climate change, the country faces regular water shortages.
Distorted water pricing has compounded the issue and is chiefly responsible for the over-extraction of India’s groundwater. Furthermore, subsidized electricity to farmers for pumping water for agricultural activities has led to instances of increased groundwater extraction, and shifting cropping pattern towards more water-intensive crops, like the rice paddy.
Efficient irrigation systems should be developed and implemented to economize water and reduce crop vulnerabilities. The use of water-saving technologies and conservation agriculture technologies, such as drip sprinkler irrigation and sub-soil irrigation, have proven extremely effective in both water conservation and increasing crop yields.
Alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and Direct Seeded Rice have also demonstrated success as water management techniques for rice plantations, whereas efforts to expand the use of millets, a highly nutritious crop that can grow on arid lands and is resilient to climate changes, in emerging economies should also be accelerated.
Climate Resilient Agriculture
It is well established that climate change is a threat to agriculture, and resilient agriculture practices forged through efficient technologies, innovations, and circular economy practices must be incentivized and scaled.
Despite being the world’s leading producer in jute, milk, wheat sugarcane, vegetable, and rice, India continues to face post-harvest losses. A 2022 study revealed that between harvesting and consumption, the country lost 5-13% of its fruits and vegetables and around 3-7% of crops that included oil, seeds, and spices.
In particular, the significant use of chemical fertilizers by Indian farmers due to huge subsidies given by the government is a major contributor not only to emissions and environmental pollution, but to the degradation of soil.
Sustainable alternatives, such as nanofertilizers and bioinoculants like mycorrhizaes should be explored to both reduce burdens on the government as well as curb the environmental impacts of traditional fertilizers. Combined agro-waste (crop-residue and livestock manure) management and increasing the use of biogas plants can also help to reduce carbon emissions and produce more resilient crops.
The world is ready to make a transition towards sustainable food and land use practices, and national leaders should seize this opportunity to intensify their fight against climate change. COP28 offers an important platform to accelerate the transformation of our food and land-use systems towards a better, progressive future.
? Vibha Dhawan is Chair of SDSN South Asia and Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
Coastal protection at Anse Kerlan Beach in the Seychelles where residents often take the initiative to protect their properties from the impact of climate-change-induced environmental changes. The Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub assists small island states, among others, with climate finance and technical assistance. Credit: Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR/UNEP
by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
Inter Press Service
Climate change finance will continue to be a focal point during the upcoming COP28 negotiations in the UAE. Dr Oldman Koboto, manager and advisor for the Commonwealth Climate Finance Hub, speaks about what’s expected.
NAIROBI, Nov 08 (IPS) – As the countdown to COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, continues, IPS caught up with Dr Oldman Koboto, Mauritius-based Manager for the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH).
The hub was established through the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2013 to provide technical assistance aimed at enhancing the countries’ access to international climate finance. This is achieved through technical assistance around project proposal development, policy support, human and institutional capacity building, knowledge management, and learning, all of which are anchored on gender and youth mainstreaming.
The hub embeds climate finance experts in individual government ministries to work with and offer technical support. The experts help identify project proposals, provide policy support, and, above all, build the capacity of both technical and institutional capacity in those ministries to develop bankable funding proposals. Since its operationalization in 2016, the hub has supported member countries to access USD 315 million in climate finance. Additionally, projects amounting to over USD 800 million are in the pipeline.
Here are excerpts from the interview.
Dr Oldman Koboto
IPS: What is the nature of climate negotiations thus far?
Koboto: Negotiations are progressing well, in my view, considering the historical background. Negotiations started when climate jurisprudence was still in its infancy. It has since progressed to a point of more certainty around legal systems and transformative approaches to address the climate change convention’s objectives. Negotiations have moved from the actual architect for implementing the convention to innovative approaches toward achieving the 1.5°C Paris Agreement aspiration.
One of the pending issues, especially on finance, is the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund – to be operationalized through the COP28. The draft outcome document for the Transitional Committee on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund showed consensus that could catalyze its operation. That being said, critical gaps still exist. IPCC cautions that even if we were to implement all the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we would still not achieve the 1.5°C targets, many of them centered around mitigation actions.
This is an indictment on the international community, through these negotiations, to make progress on adaptation-related issues. And fast-track resilience building and adaptative capacities of small and other vulnerable member states. One of the innovative approaches is leveraging private sector finance for NDCs towards climate mitigation action. But, the design parameters for both adaptation and mitigation projects are such that mitigation actions are attractive to the private sector more than adaptation measures. This creates innovation gaps toward adaptation actions, and yet mitigation initiatives do not build significant resilience. There are, therefore, successes and challenges to these negotiations.
IPS: Have countries voiced concerns regarding these negotiations?
Koboto: Almost all countries raise concerns around the pending areas and celebrate progressive areas. Countries prepare to go into the COPs by developing country positions informed by developments in international negotiations. They then build interventions around points of divergence to be ironed out in upcoming negotiations to inform or shape COP outcomes. This, on its own, is a demonstration of the countries’ concerns around those specific agenda items. It is not about one country speaking about being unhappy, but the process itself, through the established legal frameworks, enables countries to raise their concerns through platforms where such consensus could become part of the formal documentation for the COP process.
IPS: Is Africa better placed for COP28 negotiations, having recently held its inaugural Climate Summit?
Koboto: The inaugural Africa Climate Summit was a step in the right direction. It allowed African countries to paint their own vision and develop a basket of issues to push forward within international negotiations. The Nairobi Summit was consistent with other platforms for engagement on development challenges facing Africa. The message was that Africa is part of the solution and requests to be treated as equals, which is consistent with the messaging at the World Economic Forums and UN General Assembly. The draft outcome of the Loss and Damage Fund Transitional Committee indicates that developed countries’ parties will contribute to the financing of loss and damage and that developing country parties are also encouraged to contribute.
IPS: What sustains the impasse on climate financing between developed and developing countries? What will it take to break the impasse?
Koboto: This is a tough one because it falls at the heart of the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities of the UNFCCC. Having said that, it is also very difficult to target one country with the capability or capacity to provide support because of foundational principles of state policy, which sets the direction of each country regarding national and international interests. It goes without saying that national interests take precedence over international interests in areas where the two compete.
There is a willingness at the international level for developed countries to help. Meanwhile, the African continent must design innovative financing instruments to facilitate access to climate finance and attract investments to the continent. Such innovative mechanisms can be developed in subsequent African climate summits. The global climate solution lies in Africa, for the continent still has a lot of unexploited potential both in resources and opportunities around geothermal, hydrothermal, and solar energy.
IPS: What are the expectations from small island states and other vulnerable countries on new funding mechanisms and the Loss and Damage Fund going into COP28?
Koboto: The newest funding mechanism is the Loss and Damage Fund. Others are the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund, and the Adaptation Fund. African countries are unrelenting about the USD100 billion pledge made at COP15. All these funds must trickle down to developing states so that the Loss and Damage Fund becomes just an additional funding to existing funding sources.
African countries are focused on building enough consensus and influencing developed countries to deliver on promises made. Institutions such as the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub, which I lead, stand ready to facilitate African countries’ access to those Funds as soon as there is predictable and adequate funding in those Funds.
CCFAH can provide technical assistance to enhance access to climate investments at a country level and to build capacities to access these funds without the use of third parties. But these countries are unrelenting and are firmly focused on unlocking much-needed climate finance to establish and or accelerate climate action.
Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
Inter Press Service
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov 08 (IPS) – Public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure and service provision are both costly and risky. Worse, PPPs typically fail to ensure universal, let alone fair access to public amenities.
Public-private partnerships?
PPPs usually involve long-term contractual arrangements in which private businesses provide infrastructure and services traditionally provided by governments. In recent years, PPPs have built or run hospitals, schools, prisons, roads, airports, railways, water and sanitation.
Jomo Kwame SundaramRisk-sharing between public and private sectors has long been widespread. In recent years, more than two dozen different types of PPPs have been identified. Such variations reflect differences in deals between governments and commercial partners.
Most international financial institutions (IFIs) advise governments to guarantee profits for their private partners. The IFIs continue to urge governments to ‘de-risk’ commercial providers to attract their investments.
Private investor preferences for specific types of PPPs may vary over time and with circumstances, often reflecting changing needs and priorities. As no one type fits all, changing circumstances and preferences have increased the variety of PPPs.
PPP problems
PPPs are far more complex than suggested by their cheerleaders’ narratives. Their negative impacts on infrastructure and public service delivery have been highlighted again by a Eurodad-led report. Public expenses rise as governments bear private costs and risks.
Following World Bank and other IFI advice, national authorities attract commercial financial investments by appealing to private greed. PPPs have been used to ‘de-risk’ such investment, by using their terms to ensure profits for private investors.
The report also exposed PPPs’ negative impacts for democratic governance. PPP arrangements typically lack transparency, and rarely involve prior consultation with affected communities. Thus, they have been more prone to corruption and abuse.
While private partners are guaranteed profits, their PPPs may still fail. In recent years, PPPs’ fiscal and other costs kept mounting as their shortfalls grew despite their rising profitability. As such problems grow, criticisms and dissent have risen.
Why PPPs fail?
PPPs have increasingly been touted as the magic solution to many problems, particularly financial constraints, poor management and delivery. PPPs have become popular among elites in the global South, where their ‘middle classes’ were enticed by the promise of better services and ‘trickle-down’.
The private sector is supposedly more efficient and better able to deliver public amenities including energy, education, health, water and sanitation. But better value for money has rarely ensued, as many studies show. Instead, the converse is more typical.
A 2020 study by the European Federation of Public Service Unions and Eurodad identified eight major reasons why PPPs in Europe have not improved outcomes.
First, PPPs rarely raised additional funds. Instead, they have typically incurred more public debt in the form of government guarantees, rather than direct borrowing. But such additional public debt has often been obscured from the public.
Second, private commercial loans generally cost much more than government borrowings. Third, public authorities, especially central governments, still bear ultimate responsibility, especially in the event of project failure.
Fourth, PPPs have rarely delivered better ‘value for money’ than reasonably managed public projects. Fifth, seeming PPP efficiency gains have been largely due to risky cost-cutting, e.g., in public infrastructure or healthcare provision.
Sixth, PPPs distort public policy priorities, typically requiring even more cost-cutting. Seventh, PPPs have rarely delivered both ‘on-time’ and ‘on-budget’. Eighth, PPP deals are typically opaque, rather than transparent, often involving abuses and corruption.
From early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic exposed the long-term adverse effects of earlier austerity and underfunding of public health. More recently, inflation, stagnation and more extreme weather have exposed other vulnerabilities and their causes.
What can be done?
As the world faces multiple and interconnected crises, PPPs offer bogus, even dangerous solutions. Eurodad has made policy recommendations to national governments and development finance institutions (DFIs) to improve infrastructure and public service financing.
• Stop promoting PPPs. The World Bank, IMF, regional development banks and DFIs should all end the promotion of PPPs, especially for social services. Access to health, education, water and sanitation should not depend on capacity to pay.
• Fiscal and other major PPP risks should be publicly acknowledged. Governments should be warned of PPPs’ generally poor outcomes, and of the pros and cons of various financing arrangements. DFIs should all more effectively finance national plans for sustainable and equitable development.
Countries should be helped to find the best financing means to deliver responsible, transparent, gender-sensitive, environmentally and fiscally sustainable public infrastructure and social services consistent with national and multilateral obligations.
• Informed public consultations should always precede any infrastructure and public service provision agreement by PPPs. These should include ensuring the rights of all affected communities, including those to fair remedy or compensation.
• Exercise rigorous and transparent government regulation, especially for public spending, PPP contract values, project impacts, and long-term fiscal implications. The public interest must always prevail over commercial ones.
DFIs should only finance projects serving the public interest. Appropriate, publicly funded public services should be promoted, with transparent contracts for and accountable reporting on social service and infrastructure project delivery.
PPPs have often proved to be budgetary frauds, exacerbating, rather than reducing national fiscal deficits. Far from being the financial silver bullet they have been touted as, PPPs have proven to be blanks, making much noise, but with little real benefit.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
